Talk:Gatling gun

Broken link

The following link doesn't currently work: http://www-acala1.ria.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/aagatlin.htm (moved from article) - snoyes 16:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

comparison to the Puckle gun is incorrect

The line: "The Gatling gun was hand-crank operated with six barrels revolving around a central shaft, similar to the Puckle Gun." is incorrect. The Puckle gun was a single barrel weapon which operated like a modern revolver. The Gatling Gun operates more like multiple repeating rifles which rotate around a central axis.

Add diagrams

It would be very great to have diagrams and schematics of gatling gun's design and how it worked. I'm referring to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs.

broken runeberg.org link

This link gives 500 Internal Server Error, it was in the image Gatling.gif caption: http://runeberg.org/nfai/0122.htm --Kenyon 00:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

http://stupidbeaver.com/evolution-of-the-gatling-gun/ Good link about Gatling Gun

Why multiple barrels?

An explanation of the advantages of multiple rotating barrels as opposed to a single barrel would be nice...

They use multiple barrels so they can fire more bullets faster if you didn't the barrel would melt. other ways to solve melting is to have a backup barrel or a water jacket like on the Maxim Machine gun Dudtz 8/25/05 5:54 PM EST

If I recall correctly...high overall RPM, low per-barrel RPM and good overheating tolerance.

High overall RPM: This is rather obvious, rotary guns are usually almost never run at their maximum RPMs, but even at their nominal firing rates they will still outshoot any machine guns. For instance, the M134 (Which can go up to 6000RPM) at a nominal 3000RPM will still greatly outpace the MG-3 GPMG which can only operate at 1200RPM, despite both using the same round (7.62x51 NATO).

Low per-barrel RPM: I will use the prior example. The M134 has 6 barrels, and since its firing at 3000RPM, that means each barrel effectively operates at 500RPM. On a per-barrel basis, this makes an individual M134 barrel handle a lot less rounds than the MG-3's barrel (500 versus 1200). This directly translates into the next advantage.

Good overheating tolerance: Note the low per-barrel RPM as mentioned prior. Now, it is obvious that the faster you run rounds through a barrel, the faster it overheats. A rotary gun will actually take longer to overheat than a traditional MG since its per-barrel RPM is lower. You can actually run a rotary gun for a longer period of time than a MG of the same caliber, even with a vastly-superior overall rate of fire. You might even infer that this also translates into less wear-and-tear on the barrel and subsequently give it a longer lifespan.

Any further queries? CABAL 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the airflow over the spinning barrels helps cool them.

Internal disagreement

When was the Gatling gun patented? 1865, as said in the lead, or 1861, as claimed in the history section? -- Jonel | Speak 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The first patent (U.S. 36,836) issued Nov 4 1862, so 1865 is impossible. MJustice 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meroka Machine Guns: An Alternative?

Are meroka type machine guns an alternative to a Gatling?, They seem to use a Combined Rate of Fire' and shoot in 'Salvo's.

User:Jetwave Dave

When the Gatling gun was imported into Russia in the 19th century, a Russian claimed credit for it. Should be pretty easy to establish who designed it.

Gatling Guns are NOT Machine Guns

Just wanted to point this fallacy out.

The Machine gun article considers them manual machine guns. --Gbleem 02:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the same article defines a machine gun as a fully automatic firearm, I think the balance goes to the OP - the Gatling action is driven rather than automatic and so doesn't qualify. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of ignorant people call Gatling guns machineguns. Machineguns, but definition, are internally powered. Gatling guns, obviously, aren't. QED. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of intelligent people also make mistakes. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.40.136 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

the original Gatling guns are NOT Machine Guns. They are manually operated repeaters. To say they are is similar to calling lever action Henry rifle of the same era a Thompson Sub Machine Gun. Hiram Maxim is credited with the first actual Machine Gun or AUTOMATIC firearm. WHY has wikipedia NOT corrected this glaring error? False Data (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tried to correct basic factual error, properly referenced, but gatekeeping vandals keep reverting it. Commonly held factual errors are still false, and shouldn't be in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.64.249 (talk • contribs)

Hello from the gatekeeping vandal. You are trying to redefine the whole topic by using an American legal statute. Legal statutes from one political entity do not automatically define every topic for every country. You'll notice that engineering author Joseph Berk titled his 1991 book The Gatling Gun: 19th Century Machine Gun to 21st Century Vulcan. You'll notice that British Major F. V. Longstaff and Captain A. Hilliard Atteridge wrote in detail about the gatling gun in their exhaustive 2012 work, The Book of the Machine Gun 1917. You'll notice that English author Anthony Smith starts with an extensive discussion of the gatling gun in his 2004 book, Machine Gun: The Story of the Men and the Weapon That Changed the Face of War. Julia Keller's 2008 book, Mr. Gatling's Terrible Marvel: The Gun that Changed Everything and the Misunderstood Genius who Invented it, says that "Gatling was the man who unlocked the secret of the machine gun." So you see, many observers place the first machine gun right here in Gatling's lap. The US composing a contrary piece of legislation doesn't redefine the topic. And in any case, US laws about guns are terribly suspect of non-neutrality on the topic, since the NRA is pushing so hard to establish their reactionary viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been settled U.S. law since 1955, as referenced. You can consider the laws non-neutral if you like - people have lots of misconceptions and opinions, even published ones, that make absolutely no difference in court. I'm not trying to redefine the topic, I'm trying to correct basic misinformation that affects aspects such as acquisition and usage of the main topic of the article. Yes, the Gatling gun is certainly is an important historical step in the history of machine guns - but that doesn't make it one. I certainly have no problem with this being discussed in the body of the article, but misrepresenting their status is a clear neutrality violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.64.249 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not based on US law—never has been. Wikipedia is based first and foremost on WP:SECONDARY sources such as the books I mentioned above. So it doesn't matter what the US law is. US laws are not secondary sources, they are primary sources, and limited in scope to the US, not global. Since a great many observers position the Gatling gun as the first machine gun, there is no "misinformation" for you to correct. In fact, the information about the Gatling gun being the first machine gun is accurately summarizing the WP:Reliable sources. Feel free to expand the body of the article by describing various definitions, but they are not going to redefine the topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Modern Gatling Guns

Another fallacy to be pointed out is that modern "gatling" guns typified by the Vulcan are not gatling guns at all, the only common feature they share is a number of rotating barrels. The firing mechanism is entirely different, and it is bad form to refer to them in wikipedia as anything else than "gatling type" or "gatling style" weapons. Emoscopes 15:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern multi-barrel rotary cannons such as the M61 still employ the Gatling principle of a set of barrels and bolts in a rotating cluster where the bolts are operated by a fixed cam. They most certainly DO use the same firing mechanism.

Adding my support with Emoscopes, although "rotary autocannon" is probably the best description. --Trifler (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"500 rounds" is not a rate of fire without a unit of time (maybe 1 minute?) ---Xr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.53.145 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

I deleted "If the gun had been used more frequently and earlier in the war, the war may have ended far more rapidly." This is speculation, even if true. --squadfifteen, 23/11/05

Caliber?

The caliber mentioned needs to be clarified. Was it a .78 Richie using 79 grains of black powder, as implied? --squadfifteen, 23/11/05

Tactics

It would be of interest to have a mention of the tactical use of Gatling guns. I've read they were employed like artillery pieces (contrary to film & TV depictions of them like the MGs in "Rat Patrol"...) --squadfifteen, 23/11/05

In Operation Just Cause my squad from B btry. 2/62 ADA used our Vulcan to sink a PT boat that was speeding up the Panama Canal. L0b0t 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian Wars

The author has unfortunatly given ZERO attention to the Gatling Gun's first major deployment in combat with its usage against the Dakota Empire, Arapaho Nation, Cheyenne Nation and scores of others during that genocidal period in the USA's history known as the Indian Wars. Anybody want to cover the gun's devastating effect against those countries?

POV neutral?

why do people rant about how something isn't covered, and then not write it themselves? MJustice (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they should feel free to add such information. It may be useful, however, for them to first learn what genocide actually means and that Indian nations weren't "countries". More importantly for this topic, they should understand that early Gatling guns weren't really all that effective, hence their rapid replacement by Maxim type weapons.--172.190.225.79 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dentist

I dont think this guy was a dentist. It dosent say anything about him being a dentist in his article Richard Jordan Gatling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.31.140 (talk • contribs) .

You are quite right. I will remove that. Megapixie 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it would appear that he studied medicine and dentistry, but never actually practiced. Removing the comment is best. Megapixie 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Was Gatling naive?

According to a documentary I just watched ("Weapons of War::Machine Guns" - I *think* it was channel 5 (UK)) Gatling's motivation behind inventing it was to Save Lives by reducing the number of men on the battlefield - and thus reducing the number of injuries. The idea was to allow a single/couple of men to fire the same amount of bullets as a whole company/regiment, thus not *needing* as many men on the battlefield...

Obviously, this was not quite what happened...

Questions:

• Is it true?
• If so, is it worth mentioning here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarlJorgensen (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

1. Yes, this is true. See his own page Richard Jordan Gatling for the full quote.

2. I don't see why, since it is more appropriately sited in the article on the inventor himself.

3. I would not call him naive. In context, it made more sense. During the period when Gatling guns had limited availability, the side that had them suffered fewer casualties and needed fewer men. Of course, the same was not true for the other side (but frankly, who cares about such people? They should've brought their own Gatlings to the Gatling gun fight :-). . . .

MJustice (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BOFORS =/= Gatling

As far as I can tell Bofors 40mm guns like those on USAF AC-130s are not multibarrel rotary guns. 75.31.138.94 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but the 7.62mm, 20mm and 25mm Vulcan cannons that have been used on AC-130s over the years ARE multi-barrel rotary cannons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.250.98 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Handheld Gatling Guns

I know this seems stupid, but alot of videogames and some tv shows have shown characters holding and firing a gatling gun with just their two arms. I seriously doubt it, but is this possible in real life?

If you were extremely muscular, yes. Wouldn't be practical though. The batteries and ammo would contribute too much weight. CABAL 14:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any known occasions were someone actually attempted to try this in real life? And yes, in those video games such as team fortress 2, the characters do look unnaturaly large Diabl0658 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura held a portable Gatling gun in the movie Predator. However, from what I read he had to fight the thing to keep it under control and needed to be propped up when firing it. And this was just with blanks. CABAL 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

According to my Predator DVD, the spin of the barrels offset the recoil. Both he and Bill Duke held and fired the gun unassisted. The gun itself is the M134 helicopter gun with custom furniture rigged around it. If you look closely on the DVD, it's actually pretty cheap looking; I'd be more worried about the sling breaking off than muzzle climb. The real problem, however, is that the battery pack was bulky and heavy, so they just hid it in the grass. In the movies, Ol' Painless is powered by cool. Woerkilt (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? All the other sources about it I have seen have said that they had to use a crane to hold it up and fire it, can you provide other sources on that? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesse at least did hold it without the crane using a custom sling (a crane was used in some shots) and described it as "like firing a chainsaw," but bear in mind the Predator gun was [a] firing blanks which have far less recoil and [b] geared down to around 1,200 RPM rather than 6,000 because the director wanted the barrels to visibly rotate on 24FPS movie film. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No way, you could never hold of gatling gun up by yourself. Even if you could, the recoil would be so high, you'd never get any accuracy. Renegade Heretic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.69.87 (talk)

Apparently You can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d84r8gMGxFQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=146s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.69.87 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Accuracy Due To Barrel Spinning?

Wouldn't the perpendicular motion of the bullets with respect to the line of fire ruin its accuracy? If a 5cm radius cylinder rotates at 600rpm, the bullets would have a perpendicular velocity of 3.14 m/s which would be very bad for long range targets. Does air friction help compensate for this? --UncleJoe1985

(Please sign your comments with four tildes.) The rate of fire is so high that one actually fires, then aims. You point in the general direction, then use the tracers to walk the fire onto the target. Individual inaccuracy doesn't really matter; when you throw enough stuff something gets hit. --StarChaser Tyger 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is only true for certain application, you would not do this with a fighter gun for example.

The rifleing of the barrel is used to adjust for the spinning barrels, one effect of this is that the gun is less accurate at slow speeds so as it spins up to its rated speed max accuracy is acheived

--Rbaal 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above is mostly wrong. The bullets don't move in any wierd motion other than a straight arc. When you take a string and tie it to a rock, then make it move in circles around your head, the rock will fly off tangent to the imaginary circle when the string breaks, and if you make the minigun rotate its barrels around and then fire off a bullet, the moment the bullet is free from the barrel it will travel in a straight line. No special rifling is necessary to keep the bullet moving straight, nor does air resistance have any real affect on accuracy the moment the bullet comes out of the barrel. And don't just guess on the innaccuracy of miniguns; look them up in google video and SEE for yourself. They're actually exceptionally accurate, putting as many shots on target as an M60 machine gun for the same amount of bullets.

However, I don't deny the fact that the tracers aim the gun, as you don't really use iron sights on these guns.

Pay better attention to physics. My physics teacher confirmed it. Eiffel56 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiffel56 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eiffel56, I'm quite certain the bullets will all move in some perpendicular motion in addition to straight. Now that I thought about it, I think the solution is simple: have the bullets leave the barrel exactly when the barrel is going up to counter gravity! Now a 1000m/s bullet traveling 1km will drop 4.9m due to gravity and rise 3.14m due to the initial upward velocity. --UncleJoe1985 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The only fighter that uses a gatling type gun is the Warthog, though, isn't it? And it's a ground attack beastie, which (in the videos I've seen of it in action) fires like I suggest above. Fire, then move to hit the target. --StarChaser Tyger 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The M61 Vulcan is used by the F14, F15, F16, F18 F22. The Harrier and F35 use the GAU-12 Equalizer, a derivative of the M61. StarChaser is correct; fire is just walked in using tracers. Parsecboy 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The bullets will travel in a straight line (apart from gravitational effects) but that line will not be exactly parallel to the barrel. It will be the direction the bullet is travelling in at the moment it leaves the barrel. So presumably they correct for this by assuming a particular rpm and moving the sights or the barrels. To continue the rock on a string analogy, while the bullet is in the barrel it travels in a spiral, and on leaving the barrel it will follow a tangent to the spiral. 93.97.25.170 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just not possible in air-to-air applications. outside of hollywood movies real life engagements for air-to-air take less that 1 second to complete. The latest version pf the M61 has lighter barrels so that they spin up faster .25 of a second rather than .45 of a second. IIRC the F22 only has 1.5 seconds of ammunition at full speed. You are not walking anything onto anything in that application. I however agree with the comment in realtionship to air-to-ground gunship applications.

--Rbaal 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the M61 barrel cluster is set with an amount of shot dispersion to obtain a "shotgun" pattern. The idea is to provide a cone of fire rather than a laser beam of shells. There is a part at the end of the barrel cluster called the muzzle clamp, different sizes of clamp will provide different sized dispersion patterns. 69.92.250.98 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The physics is correct, there is a cross-velocity to the projectile that results from the spinning cluster... it is, however, very predictable and very consistent. It is partly compensated for by having a slight cant to the barrels (they aren't actually parallel to each other or to the centerline of the gun) and the remainder and is easily compensated for in the fire control calculations. VTFirefly911 (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Puff The Magic Dragon

The article states that the minigun was referred to as "Puff The Magic Dragon." Wasn't the term used for the AC-47 gunship rather than the minigun? ("Spectre" referring to the AC-130 gunship.)

-- I believe you are correct. MJustice (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy suffers

I understand that a spinning set of barrels is slightly less accurate than a single stationary barrel. The phrase "though accuracy suffers" should stay in the lead, in my opinion. Support? Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That has already been addressed in the #Poor Accuracy Due To Barrel Spinning? section above, and the main point was that the affects are negligible. Feel free to counter those arguments there, and build a consensus to add your phrase, but for now, the consensus is to keep it out. - BillCJ (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

mege here Gatling pistol

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed - consensus to PROD/Delete. - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

About a fictional weapon in RPG's that you can also build with your Leggo set. Not enough info or notability for independent article, but could add to a fictional use section here. Dlohcierekim 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would argue delete rather than add more cruft here. What can you possibly say about it ? Megapixie (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, there is no need for a merge here, just delete Gatling pistol. L0b0t (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Prod. - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gatling's motivation

At the Richard Jordan Gatling page, he's quoted as saying "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished." This is from The Gatling Gun by Wahl and Toppel in 1971. Yes, this quote supports the position that he said one person could replace many, but it did not say that one person could operate the gun. Clearly, such a heavy piece would need a crew. The quote does not support him saying it was invented to save Union deaths. Gatling was on the fence about the Civil War—the region of his birth fought for the South but he lived and worked in the North. He hated death, that much is clear, which is why it's ironic that the machine he brought to war was used to amplify the death-dealing capability of armies. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

it required less people to shoot that than to stand out in a line and shoot.--Krasilschic (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

it wasn't made to reduce deaths by disease. one of gatling's descendants said it was to reduce union casualties because it only needed one person to fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasilschic (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were choosing which to use here in the article, I'd go with Gatling's own verifiable written reasoning before I'd accept "one of gatling's descendants said..." Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Gatling's own words are the preferred source here. Besides, it is a crew served weapon and was never intended to be operated by one person (that's just silly). L0b0t (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannon terminology

Would someone please clarify the use of the term canon in more modern contexts? It is used here without a clear definition, but it's clear that it's not something that fires cannonballs. My guess would be that it means something like "pneumatic machine gun", but for all I know, the term could include hydraulic operated guns or even non-automatic operation.

Thanks. DudeFromWork (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cannon" in context of weapons like the M61 means "Autocannon", though that term is rarely used. - BillCJ (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cannon" is frequently used as a term for weapons that are larger than those that fit the definition of "small arms", which is generally accepted to be 0.50-caliber and smaller. VTFirefly911 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ here. "Cannon" is often used as short for "autocannon." --Trifler (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Round, round we go

"lay neither in the rotating mechanism (featured by many revolvers of the day)" This could do with clarifying, since no revolver (of that period or since) had multiple barrels. (Or am I being too picky?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gatling guns in fiction

Should there be such a section? 80.101.113.45 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually not, for weapons. See WP:MILPOP. Hardly any pop stuff gets into articles under the watchful eye of the military history wikiproject. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if it passed, you'd have to find a case where it was really pivotal to the film, & AFAIK, there isn't one. (I recall a caper Western using one, & occasional appearances, including some in TV, but nothing really central to the story.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Predator? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The movie isn't called "Predator v Gatling Gun", so, no. Compare "Winchester '73". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that the word "gatling gun/minigun" has to be in the title to count? 69.132.69.87 (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I am saying, unless it's central enough it could be (or should be), it's just another firearm. Until, unless, Clint makes your day with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Grapeshot?

How is grapeshot an example of rapid firing?--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article into two

There seems to be enough information in this article to separate it into an article on the original Gatling gun, and the modern Gatling-based derivatives. I note that there is a Category for "Rotary cannons", where the main article redirects back to Gatling gun, which is probably not appropriate. Chalky (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are also Multiple barrel firearm and minigun to consider. Your proposed takeover of Rotary cannon could be a good way to split. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with splitting out but not sure where to take it. We would want to be careful to not create a content fork.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur with spliting, probably to Rotary cannon. I don't think we have to worry about C-Forking, as we're primarily splitting recent history, not "advocat[ing] a different stance on the subject." - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant that Rotary cannon should not make an inadvertent content fork with either of the two articles mentioned by Binksternet and did not mean this article. I'm stating that for Chalky's sake...just something to consider when implementing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking over Rotary cannon sounds like a plan. (Also, thanks for letting me find this. :D Never noticed it before. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Modern rotary cannons are still referred to as gatling guns, thus they are the same weapon. Having separate articles is redundant. Have one article with information from both the modern and old. ScienceApe (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory statements about Civil War use?

"It is well known for its use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s"

"The gun was not accepted by the Union Army until 1866"

I've read a lot of Civil War history and I've never read of any battle in which a Gatling gun was used. The first statement ("It is well known for its use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s") needs to be supported by a list of the battles in which Gatling guns were used, how effective they were, etc. I presume that if the Army didn't accept the guns until 1866 then they weren't effective earlier?--TDKehoe (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It was used in a couple of minor battles, basically in private use (with little more promotional effect than the abortive 1st Regiment Colts Revolving Rifles), and with no effect on the course of the war. If Gatling's weapon (and more importantly, the metallic cartridge) had come into common use 10, 15 years before the start of the war, it might have allowed the Union to leverage their industrial advantage more effectively, but in reality- nah. If it's 'well known' for its use in the Civil War, I'd like to know who 'well know' this; they're clearly misinformed. Nevard (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The article currently states:

"The Gatling gun was first used in warfare during the American Civil War. Twelve of the guns were purchased personally by Union commanders and used in the trenches during the siege of Petersburg, Virginia (June 1864 – April 1865).[11] Eight other Gatling guns were fitted on gunboats.[12] The gun was not accepted by the American Army until 1866, when a sales representative of the manufacturing company demonstrated it in combat.[13]"

By contrast, the Agar gun article says:

"the Agar machine gun was demonstrated to President Abraham Lincoln, who was very impressed by the weapon.... Union eventually ordered fifty-four additional guns... throughout the war, these weapons were used, though not extensively...Confederates obtained seventeen of the machine guns when they captured Harpers Ferry, and used them sparingly in 1864.[1]"

So, (a) Civil War use of the Gatling was minor, and eclipsed by the Agar, and (b) why not even a passing mention of the Agar in this article, aside from a "see also"? - Snori (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Weight

The infobox claims a mere 60lbs. This would make it lighter than early maxim guns. With carriage, etc I expect a weight of at least 500 lbs. I would like to see a citation for this 60lb claim, which I find unfeasable. Even the mechanism alone I would consider to be more in the order of 100lb. Any feedback from anyone? Irondome (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen numbers that look like including carriage of over 800pd. The question is, what is being measured? A bare action? Action with barrels? Loaded? Including carriage? And that question extends to the comparison weapons, like the Maxim: is the cited weight for the bare action, or what? Clarification is certainly in order. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. I am wondering if it is a typo, and 600lbs was meant. That would mean action, carriage and loaded hopper. That sounds more reasonable. However, a cite I think is essential now for this. 60lbs?? No way. usually with maxim/vickers guns it would seem to be in the order of 100 lbs or so, split evenly between gun and tripod. Excluding ammo and coolant for the vickers. Irondome (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have a problem. Maxim gun also quotes 60lbs. The tripod alone would weight that Im thinking. Vickers machine gun ifobox gives 31-52lbs "all up". The article is much more detailed in mainspace however, and gives a weight of about 120lbs including gun, mounting and a 250 round belt of ammo. Irondome (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at Fitzsimons (my fallback, with Tony Preston as his infantry advisor), & he says the original Maxim was 60pd. It's not entirely clear, but I take that to mean bare gun, complete, minus mount. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Then strictly and literally that would be correct then, alough the gun itself would be useless without tripod and cooling, sighting and ammo. I think it would be more realistic, and honest to cite total weapon weight as the sum of its parts. The Vickers article does address that in mainspace. None of the others do though. What do you think? Irondome (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

♠I think finding really reliable, consistent numbers is going to be a real bear, because I doubt anybody writing about the early guns ever anticipated a comprehensive comparison between them. It's going to take establishing, in each source, what was meant by "weight", & then distilling out weights of other things, probably from still other sources, none of them anticipating comparisons, either. I foresee months of work, if it's even possible. It is, I suggest, not to be taken on lightly. :) (Sorry about that, chief. ;p )

♠That being said, it strikes me there may be a source, or sources, with the reliable original figures, if we can get past a primary sources problem: the contract issuers, namely, U.S. Army, British Army, RFC, possibly Canadian or Australian armies. Their specifications or manuals might have itemized weights. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Then http://lonesentry.com/ is the place to start. That seems to have field manuals etc on everything Irondome (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

♥At a glance, I find the Sov Maxim had a 90pd shielded carriage. Regrettably, no mention of the Vickers. :(

♥Even if it's not there, that site's got so much other neat stuff, I'm thrilled. :D Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, its a goldmine. I bumped into it a few years ago. I hope you find it useful. Im going to be creating articles on WW2 Brit and Canadian rations as my first article attempts. Such topics may even be touched on there. Ive got enough material to make a start on 14-in-1 Composite ration and 24 Hour ration (Canadian) Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It sure is. :D I've got some other pages in mind, starting with the M2 halftrack. Maybe I'll come across you again. :) ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found a contemporary (1870s) description of Gatling guns (reproduced here: http://www.allworldwars.com/Gatling-Guns-Service-and-Description-1878.html). It gives, for weights of the 10-barrel guns: "1-inch caliber:650 pounds, 0.75-inch and 0.65-inch caliber: 450, 0.55-inch caliber:400, 0.50-inch, 0.45-inch, and 0.42-inch caliber, with long barrel:200, Same calibers with short barrels:135; Weights of carriages for Gatling 10-barrel guns. Carriage for 1-inch gun: Weight of limber and box:790, Weight of gun-carriage:1,152, Total:1,942; Carriage for 0.42-inch, 0.45-inch, and 0.50-inch guns : Limber complete:387, Gun-carriage complete:326, Total:713." So that seems helpful. I'm not sure what weight or weights should be put in the infobox, though. I'm hoping someone more, uh, wikipedian than I am might rectify that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.194.190 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent :). Good catch. Now we need to reconcile that with infobox, as you say. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When editing this article please remember that there were several generations of Gatling guns and the weights differ depending on the model of the gun. The weight posted in the info gun is correct for the 1874 short barrel "Camel Gun" with out its tripod. The 1874 short barrel Gatling (by Colt Firearms) was light weight gun (135 lbs or 61.2 kg) with a lower maximum rate of fire (see U.S. Patent No.112138, dated 28 Feb 1871). The 10 barrels mentioned in the reference are 1871 (patent) models which are heavier, mounted on field carriages and have a higher rate of fire. Thus the correct answer to the weight of gun question depends on the model number you talking about. Rich D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.126.20 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Redundant info in "American Civil War and the Americas"

In this section, the note that the gun was invented by Richard Gatling is redundant. We already have that note, in the History section. I recommend that the redundant info be removed.

TheBaron0530 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)TheBaron0530

History section issues

The timeline in this section bounces all over the place and needs work. It starts with the Gatling gun in 1861-62, then jumps to the Maxim of 1883 in the next paragraph.

The third paragraph begins with "Prior to the Gatling gun" that includes the content "mass-firing volley weapons like the French Reffye mitrailleuse in 1870–1871, and field cannons firing canister shot, much like a very large shotgun.", using the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) as an example of the later.

There should be a flowing timeline, and some rewording wouldn't hurt, without the bouncing around and wrong dates. The Reffye mitrailleuse gun, used in the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War, would not be "Prior to the Gatling gun", The Christophe and Montigny mitrailleuse was a volley gun that began in 1859 so technically could be considered prior. Apparently actual production did not start until 1863 (the date credited) so that is not an entirely accurate example, although it was a volley gun. The Fafchamps mitrailleuse (1851) would be a correct example of a volley gun "prior" to the Gatling. Otr500 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Please include this passage.....below.

The British inventor James Puckle (1667 to 1724) designed a multi chamber single barrel gun around 1718 and patented it as a multi fire weapon and possibly the first gun in this category firing more than two shots. This design had a flintlock ignition system as in use on most European firearms of that period. The Puckle gun was very likely the forerunner of the handgun "revolvers" (and similar chambered 19th Cent rifled longarms such as Colt designs) that are still in use around the world now and still working on the same principle of single barrel and multi chamber design. 195.226.42.242 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No. This might belong at Revolver or Machine gun, not here: the Puckle, presuming it worked, is a single-barrel weapon; the Gatling, self-evidently, isn't. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gatling gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804011933/http://sunblest.net/gun/Gatling.htm to http://sunblest.net/gun/Gatling.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a rapid-firing gun, it's a types of auto-firing gun

I want to change the rapid-firing to auto-firing because there are many types of auto-firing weapons, include hand crank type. LongnamXL35 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please cite reliable published sources to support your assertions. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Subject has made the news; lock?

Please be prepared for bad faith actors to start changing the year this device was invented; suggest locking the page for a time 2601:601:1501:D530:D1E3:ADB2:6DF6:37A (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We usually don't preemptively protect articles. If it becomes a problem, then we can request protection. If we asked an admin now, they'd likely point out that the article hasn't even been edited in nearly a month. BilCat (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

British North America

Section to be rewritten and expanded. Humpster (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)